[Proposal] Clear statement from PieDAO to not limit user freedom

Summary

DeFi is about empowering users and giving them the freedom to use their funds in any way they see fit even if it means users can easily move on to another protocol. This proposal aims to give pie holders predictability that they will never be limited in their actions in any way unless its deemed necessary for the security of the protocol. Specifically I would like PieDAO to make a clear statement on never ever implementing any form of censorship.

Background

It has come to my attention that in response to the Enso Finance Vampire attack a form of censorship was being considered and implemented as can be seen in this pull request. Once merged and deployed this would allow the exitPool function only to be called by non smart contracts and/or only addresses which are not blacklisted.

As stated in the summary I believe any form of censorship which limits composability and user freedom should never be implemented or even considered.

Motivation

Pie holders should be able to have trust PieDAO governance participants have their best interest at heart to build the best possible product for them. Additionally smart contract behavior should be predictable as unexpected changes in the implementation can lead to loss of funds in third party protocols.

I also believe the main strength of DeFi is composability and freedom of users to use protocols however they see fit. Any censorship on how specific addresses can interact with the protocol goes against this.

Specification

PieDAO should make a written statement on that it will never limit user or developer freedom purely to restrict the actions of competitors unless its necessary for the security of the protocol. This written statement should be voted on through snapshot and every future proposal should not go against this statement. Unless the statement is specifically invalidated by a future proposal.

NOTE: This poll is only gauge interest for a snapshot vote. Not if you actually in favor or against this proposal.

Should above proposal be voted on on Snapshot?
  • For (Yes)
  • Against (No)

0 voters

hey @mickdegraaf thanks for writing this up.

Just FYI, the pull request you are referring to wasn’t anyhow going to be implemented: after screening and discussing multiple options on Discord (among which also the possibility to temporarily limit the smart contract interaction to exitPool) is was anyhow evident that no clear consensus was formed around any of this options.

1 Like

Its comforting it would not actually happen. I still think a statement should be made to prevent these types of discussions happening in the future.

2 Likes

Hey Mick.

That PR contains a PoC of an idea that came out from a discussion going on in discord. The Enso Finance attack is taking place in some hours and if the community was going toward that decision, changes should have been made fast.

That being said, I see it this way too. DeFi composability should not be broken, under any circumstances.

5 Likes

A lot of new DAOs have a constitution to guide the mission of the DAO and make it clear which rules the community must abide by in their votes. Perhaps the drafting such a document is something that PieDAO could look into

3 Likes

Yes I think that would be great.

my bad , wanted to vote Yes. Blacklists are exactly the opposite of what DeFi is supposed to be (open finance)

So in the interest of preserving asset composability you think freedom of speech should be limited instead, enacting censorship because you have a different opinion from others?

Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?

“PieDAO should make a written statement on that it will never limit user or developer freedom purely to restrict the actions of competitors unless its necessary for the security of the protocol.”

And who gets to make the decision if there is a security risk for the protocol?

If someone breaks into your house and your very life is in danger, are you going to ask for permission from your neighbors, police, or anyone else before you exercise the right to defend yourself and your family with force?

DEFI is great as an ideal, but in practice how can true decentralization exist? At this point, a smart contract will not be fooled into making choices based on emotions, but its still not as smart as a real person.

That’s why people are still the rulers of this world, and not robots.

Also, take a look at binance. BSC has been criticized for its considerable centralization, with CZ having the ability to roll back the blockchain in the event of malicious attacks.

Yet since its inception, BSC has been rife with rugpulls, one after the other. Not once has CZ ever done anything to rectify these losses for so many users, yet he claims that CEFI is actually better than DEFI.

What makes it better if people are getting scammed left and right and the only response is: “should’ve DYOR”

If you have a chance to save someone’s life without taking any risk for yourself, would you do it? Or would you rather let the person die and say, “it was their karma. Who am I to interfere with that?”

I’m not sure if you get the context of this proposal.

I’m not advocating to limit freedom of speech
I’m not advocating to limit defensive actions in case it looks like user funds are at risk.

I’m advocating for a PieDAO where every address and protocol is considered a valid user of the protocol unless they pose a danger to the security of the DAO or user funds.